1917 (WWI movie)
Discussion
fatandwheezing said:
kev1974 said:
... The plot was garbage...
Listened to an interview with Sam Mendes.The plot was based on an anecdote of his Grandfathers, about being sent to deliver a message. I don't think he divulged the nature of the message though. https://screenrant.com/1917-movie-true-story-real/
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/1917/
thegreenhell said:
kev1974 said:
... the story of two soldiers being sent to the new front line with an urgent message to stop an attack is all made up.
It's a Hollywood movie, not a documentary.The German withdrawal is based on historic events but is just a vehicle for giving the movie a time when they could be travelling through the battlefield environment rather than just static trench warfare.
It’s a movie about experience and emotion not a documentary.
kev1974 said:
Anyone else wondering why they didn't just get one of the reconnaisance planes to drop the new instructions to the Colonel? (I don't think that's a spoiler to say that!). Or a guy on a horse or a motorbike for that matter?
Confusion, lack of confidence in the airborne option as it was new technology and also not guaranteed to get delivered, coupled with a lack of willingness for said new fangled aviation types to stray from their primary role or artillery spotting and shooting at other aircraft.kev1974 said:
More plot questions which I felt let it down ...
Schofield must have been pretty pissed off at being sent through no mans land on foot only to find trucks driving through on the other side, must have wondered why they didn't just send them on one of those? Unless that was to show quite how much in the WWI the left hand really didn't know what the right hand was doing?
Think you’ve answered your own question there. In any war there is always a lot of confusion, with an added air of “If you want something doing, do it yourself”. On top of that, there always has been and always will be a bit of an empire-building attitude in the services....”I can’t possibly let you have a truck, someone might need it for something important”Schofield must have been pretty pissed off at being sent through no mans land on foot only to find trucks driving through on the other side, must have wondered why they didn't just send them on one of those? Unless that was to show quite how much in the WWI the left hand really didn't know what the right hand was doing?
Don’t ask how I know this.
kev1974 said:
Why was there a bucket of fresh, safe milk just sitting there in what was clearly a long abandoned farm? Absolutely everything in the place was derelict and ruined yet there's a nice clean bucket and lid there?
Not sure I’d describe it as “clean” but anyway...Armies will always eat/drink whatever they find along the way. In the Falklands campaign, British troops routinely shot and cooked the wild upland geese that live on the islands.
In “1917” I suspect the pail of milk being so fresh was simply a visual nod to how recently departed and thus close the Germans were.
kev1974 said:
Why would Colin Firth be bothered about finding someone who had a brother at the target trenches? Seems a bit emotional, wouldn't you rather send the very best man for the job?
Knowing your brother might well die if the message doesn’t get there is pretty good motivation.kev1974 said:
How exactly did the Brits dig all those new trenches and dugouts at the new German front line in just days anyway
Shovels. Lots and lots of shovels and lots and lots of manpower. If you look closer, the trenches at the end of the film are mostly basic furrows dug in the ground, not the elaborate, reinforced network of walls and bunkers seen at the start. kev1974 said:
Finally how come his brother was in an entirely different regiment to him.
Very common for brothers/workmates/friends to join the same unit, but not compulsory.kev1974 said:
Also unlikely that one brother would have ended up officer class and one stayed a grunt surely?
Again, although unlikely, not entirely unheard of. Age may well have played a part where the younger brother was barely out of school whilst the older brother could be say, mid to late 20s and already established in a professional career than set him aside as officer material.kev1974 said:
And then the random Sikh guy thrown in, huh?
Lots and lots of Commonwealth soldiers in WW1, especially from Asia. Granted having just one pop up randomly in an otherwise white British unit did seem to whiff of tokenism.As to the point about one brother being an officer and the other not that's perfectly possible. Just reading an account of the Somme at the moment and there was a ex public school boy brigade who given their back ground you would expect to all end up as officers but many of them went in as privates as they did want to be delayed joining the war by the additional training time to become an officer. That's just one example but it shows it was possible for someone you might expect to become an officer to actually chose to become a private.
With regard to the random Sikh guy he was not on his own. When you see them push the truck there are actually a few other Sikh's visible. This seems to suggest they are a unit of sorts and not just some random guy on his own that's part of unit they would not be historically part of.
With regard to the random Sikh guy he was not on his own. When you see them push the truck there are actually a few other Sikh's visible. This seems to suggest they are a unit of sorts and not just some random guy on his own that's part of unit they would not be historically part of.
paulw123 said:
Maybe PH’ers actually have an idea of the actual events at Dunkirk.
There are countless historian reviews of Dunkirk, Michael Korda,(wrote a book on Dunkirk) who called “Dunkirk” “very courageous,” “impressive,” and “absolutely wonderful.” orJohn Broich, historian of the British Empire at Case Western Reserve University, “In terms of accuracy,” Broich writes, “it rates pretty highly. There are no big, glaring historical whoppers.”
Anyway when I want a go-to review on a film, I always look at the reviews by blokes in IT on the internet, as they know everything about every subject.
I think you guys are making too much of Dunkirk. It was an entertaining film and if you went into the cinema with that in mind it was brilliant. It may not be 100% accurate but as an entertainment film it certainly did it’s job.
I saw 1917 last night and although technically brilliant I guess, I thought it wasn’t as good a fil imo and the acting was a little ham. I still enjoyed it but can’t see what everyone is raving about.
I saw 1917 last night and although technically brilliant I guess, I thought it wasn’t as good a fil imo and the acting was a little ham. I still enjoyed it but can’t see what everyone is raving about.
Thesprucegoose said:
The biggest expectation is that the film will be a historical documentary, when it is a story set in a war background.
I think this is going down the same rabbit hole that the Dunkirk conversation did.To do the story justice and for a film to live up to the (often self-generated) hype, the setting has to be believable and with historical events like WW1 and 2 there’s such a wealth of research material that obvious, glaring errors are becoming subjected to much closer scrutiny than ever before.
I still liked 1917; worth every penny of the ticket and will probably get it for home viewing when it’s released.
As a historical snapshot of trench warfare (locations aside) its a absolute belter. Schools should show it as part of history lessons (to a suitably aged audience, obviously. CFK Jnr is only just coming to terms with the fact that Iggle Piggle can’t actually speak)
I saw the film in IMAX and thought it was great but didn’t leave the cinema immediately and drove home in silent contemplation as it did have an effect on me.
A few bits stuck out that haven’t already been mentioned.
He jumps into the river with the letter in his pocket and less than 10 minutes later hands over a pretty dry letter that is still legible. I was half expecting the letter to be ruined and the pointlessness of the mission becomes apparent as the attack continues to go ahead. Likewise, his personal photos were again completely undamaged by his time in the water.
As the film is shot in two continuous real times shots it only took less than two hours to make the entire journey although it was meant to be several miles. Coupled with the slow progress through no man’s land etc. they couldn’t have got too far.
A few bits stuck out that haven’t already been mentioned.
He jumps into the river with the letter in his pocket and less than 10 minutes later hands over a pretty dry letter that is still legible. I was half expecting the letter to be ruined and the pointlessness of the mission becomes apparent as the attack continues to go ahead. Likewise, his personal photos were again completely undamaged by his time in the water.
As the film is shot in two continuous real times shots it only took less than two hours to make the entire journey although it was meant to be several miles. Coupled with the slow progress through no man’s land etc. they couldn’t have got too far.
I also saw it at the IMAX yesterday. I’ve never been to a film before where the majority of the audience just sit there as the final credits roll, absorbing what they’ve seen and just composing themselves.
I think the idea above that this should be shown to schools studying WWI is a good one. I can’t think of a film that shows the misery of the trenches, the dread before going over the top and the terror of being shot at so vividly.
Phenomenal film. If you have the opportunity to see it at an IMAX youre in for an unforgettable experience.
I think the idea above that this should be shown to schools studying WWI is a good one. I can’t think of a film that shows the misery of the trenches, the dread before going over the top and the terror of being shot at so vividly.
Phenomenal film. If you have the opportunity to see it at an IMAX youre in for an unforgettable experience.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff